# 2023-102 Careers, Terms of Service

Case summary

F&R Date: 2025-01-14

The grievor disputed the validity of a Terms of Service (TOS) they signed in April 2005. The grievor argued that their Chain of Command (CoC) pressured them to sign a second Basic Engagement (BE) and that an Intermediate Engagement 20 (IE 20) should have been offered at that time.  

The Initial Authority determined that the grievor had submitted the grievance beyond the required time limit and that accepting the grievance would not be in the interest of justice.

The Committee noted that prior to amendments to TOS policy coming into effect on 1 May 2005 that removed eligibility to IE 20 TOS, to be eligible for reengagement, members must have shown motivation towards service life, satisfactory progress in occupation advancement and have had a satisfactory record of trade performance. This policy also allowed Commanding Officers to offer, earlier than normal, a second BE as a condition of selection for formal training leading to Qualification Level (QL) 5 or higher.   

The Committee found that it was impossible for the grievor, having only served five months and at the time awaiting QL3 training, to have adequately demonstrated a motivation towards service and a history of satisfactory progress that would have substantiated an IE 20 TOS offer. The Committee recognized that although it was not strictly necessary for the grievor to have signed a new TOS to complete QL3 training, it was acceptable by policy to have offered the grievor a second BE at that time.

The Committee acknowledged that the grievor felt pressure from their CoC to sign the offered second BE. However, the Committee noted that an IE 20 was not a viable option to have offered to the grievor at that time. The Committee also noted that on 1 May 2005, changes to TOS policy came into effect that removed any eligibility to IE 20 TOS, replacing it with IE 25 TOS and that Canadian Forces General Order 067/05 specified that for members on a BE, conversion to an IE 20 was not an option. The Committee found that regardless of whether they signed the second BE or not, the grievor had not been unreasonably denied an opportunity to sign an IE 20 TOS.

The Committee recommended that the final authority not afford the grievor redress.